Is sexual perversion the bond the higher level of freemasons to ensure nobody breaks ranks and becomes a whistleblower.

If they all have so much dirt on each other is it a prerequisite to engage in acts to join the club.

"Now I have worked with many freemasons over the years and most of the lower degrees are fine. However, the higher in degree the more morally
questionable they become. Until the very senior Masonic degrees all have an unhealthy interest in the occult and sexual perversion.

The eastern crime squad knew about the Kray gangsters and the sex parties known as ” Pink ballets ” with young lads but let them continue,"

Jimmy Saville was protected for years, police knew about him but for some reason he was untouchable.

In 1977, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin had a meeting with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat.

This led to 'peace' between the two countries.

Sir Jimmy Savile received a medal from Israel in 1979, for services rendered.

Reportedly, Savile visited Israel in 1975 to advise Israel's President Ephraim Katzir on a matter of security.

Reportedly, Savile told the Israeli cabinet that he "was very disappointed: the Israelis had won the Six Day War but they had given back all the
land, including the only oil well in the region, and were now paying the Egyptians more for oil than if they had bought it from Saudi Arabia."

It doesn't look good but wait and see. He may still be found innocent.

I hate this culture of blame and pillory before an investigation has been concluded. Let the authorities do their work and we will see. Again though,
i have to say, it doesn't look good.......

The alternative is a society where anyone can be accused of anything without any evidence to back it up - a truly frightening prospect.

For example, taking your screen name as a base, can we start a rumour that Rolf only wanted to work on Animal Hospital because of his long standing
fondness for bestiality?

I think you need to hear the accounts of the women involved in the Saville case, there is a difference between a rumour and over 30 allegations made
by women. The point about the screen name is a bit silly

I understand your point but apart from anything, constant media attention goes against the grain of a fair trial. In fact, it almost prevents it. I
realise he is dead and cannot be tried but the same principle should surely apply?

The last 10-15 years have seen an explosion in this. The media get wind of a story and then constantly play it. When an investigation is under way,
this is entirely unethical.

Yes, keep the pressure on but no, do not rush to judgement. Can you imagine being in a situation where everyone has decided you are guilty before a
trial has even taken place?

If he is found guilty, that is when we should be looking at how he got away with it, if anyone covered it up, etc. To assume guilt beforehand sets a
dangerous precedent in my opinion.

Why is it silly? Your screen name is Rolf Harris, he is in the public eye. It is a demonstration that tales can be made up about anything, without
anything to back it up. 30 women saying something is not evidence of anything, it is hearsay. Yes, it demonstrates that the issue needs looking into
and investigating properly but at this stage it is not proof of anything. In court, that would count as witness statement. Do you realise that
convictions cannot, by law, be made on witness statements alone? Corroborating evidence is also required. This is mainly to prevent huge miscarriages
of justice, where people are convicted without evidence.

Like i said initially, it doesn't look good for Saville. Judgement cannot and should not be made though until the investigation is complete.

Why is it silly? Your screen name is Rolf Harris, he is in the public eye. It is a demonstration that tales can be made up about anything, without
anything to back it up. 30 women saying something is not evidence of anything, it is hearsay. Yes, it demonstrates that the issue needs looking into
and investigating properly but at this stage it is not proof of anything. In court, that would count as witness statement. Do you realise that
convictions cannot, by law, be made on witness statements alone? Corroborating evidence is also required. This is mainly to prevent huge miscarriages
of justice, where people are convicted without evidence.

Like i said initially, it doesn't look good for Saville. Judgement cannot and should not be made though until the investigation is complete.

A court of law cannot be relied upon in this case because of Jimmy Saville's links to the establishment. You cannot let the people being investigated
be the investigators!

I saw something about him this morning on the box. 125 reports made against him and also 2 rape allergations. Over 40 odd years of allergations and he
was never charged with anything? The masons control the courts/police and have their fingers in many other pies.
I think its right in thinking that the elites are all in it togeather. What better way to control people. I would also like to add the Political types
into this gang. No wonder once they get into office everything changes and they will do the bidding of anyone but the people. What a can of worms
this is going to open up. If it is allowed to be freely investigated. Which I doubt.

This has taken me quite by surprise. While i never really watched him (most of it before my time), from my peripheral view over the years, I always
took him as a harmless eccentric, whom appeared to do a lot more good throughout his life than bad.

However, should the findings be true, and as said above, its may be another childhood memory destroyed. My thoughts remain with the alledged
victims.

I am fully aware of the charges involved and the links to the "Establishment". Feel like i must be from a different era! It looks like Saville is
probably guilty of the charges. As of yet though, no guilt has been established.

Allegations prove nothing. Without any proof it is simply a witch hunt.

I have to say, i do not like being in the position of defending Saville! (never thought that would happen, always thought he was weird). I just firmly
believe it is fundamentally wrong to castigate and vilify and generally pronounce judgement on something as vile as this without any proof being
established first.

I have to say, i do not like being in the position of defending Saville! (never thought that would happen, always thought he was weird). I just firmly
believe it is fundamentally wrong to castigate and vilify and generally pronounce judgement on something as vile as this without any proof being
established first.

I see your point about evidence, as many people have been accused of things that later came out as being false.

I have to ask though, what is enough evidence in your eyes?

Would witness testimony be enough, or are you in the "pics or it didn't happen" camp?

Imagine if we were like that with every case of abuse that was ever reported.

Originally posted by Sinny
Jimmy Savile is VILE, there's no doubting his guilt.

Peadophillia runs rampant through the high ranks of Masonry, Parliament, the Police Force, The Social Services, and many other organisations.

Yak!

What is the connection here? Are people whom are not pedophiles only allowed access in certain societies and think tanks if they engage in acts that
expose them to blackmail, or is the percentage of pedophiles no greater than among the general population, however with the perk that their
connections shield them from the law?

She is a nurse. She is a responsible adult in a caring profession. And therein lies the problem for me. If she truly saw this, why did she not report
it to the authorities? She has failed in her duty of care by not reporting it and is therefore guilty of concealing child abuse. There are no grey
areas here - if she saw abuse she had to report it.

The argument of his ties to authority just do not wash with me. I can only speak for myself but as an ex teacher (ie, another "alleged" caring
profession) if i had witnessed it, i would have reported it to the Police. If it is subsequently swept under the carpet i would have thought about
further action i could take. This nurse on the other hand has done none of these things and only decided to speak out about it now, all these years
later. She wasn't a victim of abuse herself so had no underlying pyschological reasons (legitimate ones) not to report it.

Whilst this doesn't invalidate her testimony, it certainly does raise questions about the reliability of her testimony.

As to what is acceptable evidence? I honestly have no idea. That would be down to those skilled at investigating these sorts of allegations. They must
surely have various methods and techniques they could use but i honestly have no idea what these are (which, if people on here are honest, they would
also admit to!). If those skilled investigators see enough to pronounce guilt, that will certainly be good enough for me.

Basically, i simply think people are jumping the gun on this issue. Wait and see. If guilty, go to town on him and his activities. Throw the book at
anyone else involved, with extremely lengthy sentences.

Until such a point though, it is all simply conjecture on all of our parts.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.